Your Thread – August 4

Here’s Monday’s folks.

~By posting on this blog you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog and by our Terms of Use. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to reportabuse@mysuburbanlife.com.

Advertisements

118 thoughts on “Your Thread – August 4

  1. Drew filed his itinerary with the States office, as he was required to do, stating when he was leaving, where he was going, and when he would be returning.

    As long as he checks in when he returns he is not in any violation of his bond.

    Drew was under no obligation to notify ISP that he was leaving, and if they failed to check with the States office to see if he had properly filed his paperwork then that is their error, hopefully that is not the case, that would seem rather uninformed of them…

    Also, it seems some were also misinformed about the location of the children. I hope they have realized their mistake and correct themselves.

    Here is hoping that Monday morning produces some results towards the hearsay bill though!

  2. iamseppy // August 4, 2008 at 12:20 am

    … Also, it seems some were also misinformed about the location of the children. I hope they have realized their mistake and correct themselves. …
    _________________
    I had heard they were NOT with Drew in Florida; I saw on Geraldo that they were with Mike Robinson and with Drew’s family in Bolingbrook (area).

    So is that all wrong? I’m not sure whether I did to realize my mistake.

    😀

  3. In reality (whether anyone likes it or not) Drew is still only officially considered a suspect in Stacy’s disappearance. He hasn’t been charged in connection with her disappearance nor Kathleen Savio’s murder so the LE’s hands are tied.

    I guess the gun charge wasn’t a big enough charge to restrict him from traveling in the judge’s opinion. The other possible charges are indeed much more severe and would certainly warrant them not allowing him to travel – but he is still just a suspect from a legal perspective and the courts don’t abide by the court of public opinion.

    Some people are suspects for many, many years (such as the Ramseys ). As long as he followed whatever rules the judge set for him there will be no revocation of his bond.

  4. Hey Noway- I missed geraldo last night but thats what I heard. And didn’t you hear that from an anon source too?

    I got beaned by BigM. I believed he had an email from drew, just like you had one from I assume an FSPer. I guess I trust both of you for some reason. (not saying I always agree) I wasn’t aware of yours tho til today; was his ruse about one in response to your claim?

    I’m so confused.

    IF DP is in Fla by himself (or did I hear JB was escorting?) without kids anyway, at least it means the kids are getting away from him and the house the disappearance happened in.

    However, I have four stressing children too; but I would feel way too guilty to take a vacation like that without them.

    Oh yeah, I said ‘feel guilty’……not in his repertoire…..

    I’ll try to do more back reading so I don’t look quite so stupid, but I couldn’t find the JB travelling info.

  5. And if indeed Drew left his children with Mike Robinson – I’m going to point out the obvious here – WTF is he doing leaving his children with someone that he knows has a criminal background and current charges pending that include assault? I don’t think there is anything legally wrong with this and I don’t think that is enough for DCFS to step in. If Mike ever says anything against Drew – he will surely suddenly become a money-hungry, low-life, criminal in Drew’s eyes.

  6. TAI- so true.

    and the ramseys even changed from CO residency to full time GA, and most likely traveled otherwise.

  7. I think he’s running out of friends to babysit and just can’t stand being stuck in the house with the kids.

    I think it’s ironic that commonly a controlling man thinks the wife should be cooking and cleaning and watching the kids; with little or no contact with family/friends….

    de ja vu drew?

  8. Liz, I don’t think the person who told me the kids were in Florida was ever an FSPer. But yes, she said the kids were with family (at least for some portion of that time).

    TAI2,I admit that Mike Robinson isn’t the ideal picture of a babysitter IMO. But if Mike Robinson was your babysitter (as a kid) … I don’t think he’d have any problems keeping you in line, would he? 😉

  9. Joel is back and blogging again (from LegalPub)

    http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2008/08/does-darrell-johnson-turning-up-alive.html

    L.P.: How about a status report on the so called confidential informants?

    Brodsky: If in fact Len Wawczak and Paula Stark are undercover informants who wore an eavesdropping device on Drew Peterson with the approval of the Illinois State Police (ISP), there is one thing that is unforgivably outrageous about this. I am not worried about the contents of the recordings because (A) Drew is innocent and therefore has nothing incriminating to say, and (B) I suspected Wawczak and Stark were working for the ISP for some time, (especially after the revolver Drew legally transferred to them turned up in the hands of the ISP). What is highly disturbing is how the ISP has allowed Drew’s children to be severely damaged by the behavior of these informants.

    Wire wearing undercover informants are typically closely monitored. Their tapes are reviewed constantly, and they are debriefed on a regular basis so the police can know what they are doing, approve, correct, and direct their behavior. The ISP knowingly allowed, or perhaps even directed, Wawczak and Stark to become close with the Peterson children; Tom (15), Chris (13), Anthony (4) and Lacy (3). These innocent children became very attached to Wawczak and Stark. Lacy, who needs female attention, became particularly attached to, and even loved, Paula Stark. The boys also became quite close with Len Wawczak, whose immature and sophomoric behavior is particularly appealing to the teenage boys. Now these children have to be told that it was all an act. Wawczak and Stark really didn’t love them, they were pretending. Worse they were pretending in order to trap their father, who they dearly love, in order to take him away from them. When Lacy, the beautiful 3 year old, asks for Paula, what can Drew tell her? When he tells Lacy that she won’t be able to see Stark again, what will happen to that little girl? Her heart will break. When she learns that Stark was only around to work with the police to try to take her daddy away, what will she think? What about the boys. How will they ever be able to trust anyone again when they discover that Wawczak was not really interested in them, but only came around so often to work for the police who are after their dad. The children will be psychologically scarred for life because of what Wawczak and Stark did, apparently with the blessing, support, help, and encouragement of the Illinois State Police. What happened here is nothing less than the state sponsored psychological torture of these children.

    By law Drew has to be notified that he was being recorded shortly after the eavesdropping ends. Therefore the ISP had to know that the relationship that they were allowing, and encouraging, Wawczak and Stark to establish with the Peterson children would end in this manner. Yet they allowed this to continue, and made no provision to minimize the extreme collateral damage to the children psychological health. What were they thinking? And the question has to be asked, are there any limits to what is acceptable in the Drew Peterson investigation? Are there any limits, no matter who is hurt and what means are used? Do the ends always justify the means, even when the means leave small children with permanent psychological scars? …

  10. I guess I meant controlling as in the emotionally abusive type—there’s controlling and then there’s CONTROLLING

  11. FYI, the “conversation” I had with the person who told me that the kids were okay and were with family took place in a chat room.

    😀 If I learn nothing from Drew’s experience, I have learned this: all conversations that take place in a chatroom should be taken with the appropriate dose of salt.

  12. And LegalPub’s own illogical post (comparing someone presumed lost in a flood to Stacy):

    Does Darrell Johnson Turning Up Alive 30 Years After Being Presumed Dead Provide Hope That Stacy Peterson Is Still Alive?
    For those believing that Stacy Peterson is still alive, another example of why society should not rush to conclusions may have surfaced. Specifically, a man, presumed to have been dead for thirty years, has turned up a live. No, this is not the story of John Darwin who turned up five years after he was thought to have died. Rather, this is Darrell Johnson, a man believed to have died in a Colorado flood in 1976. Johnson has turned up alive and well in Oklahoma.

    The 63 year-old Johnson did not know he had been counted among the 144 victims of the 1976 Big Thompson Canyon flood. Apparently, Johnson and his family had left their cabin just a few hours before the resort was washed away. How Johnson actually ended up on the victims list remains a mystery. Ironically, Johnson now directs funerals in Oklahoma City.

    As for the latest in the Drew Peterson saga, Peterson’s attorney had a partial victory on the gun charge. See Update In essence, it appears attorney Brodsky was apparently correct when he argued that federal law protected Drew against the weapons charge. While charges remain, the court’s findings make it seem improbable that the State can maintain its burden of proof at trial. As for the telephone taping of Peterson, Legal Pub has been attempting to get the defenses side of the recordings. From what was shared, it is clear that Joel Brodsky is not pleased with how the recordings were created.

  13. Why should Drew be angry at Lenny and Paula if the tapes will PROVE he is innocent, as he claims they will?

    Why does he feel that he needs to tell the kids that Lenny and Paula’s actions were all an act. Why doesn’t he say that Lenny and Paula’s actions will prove that he is innocent?

  14. He wasn’t actually lost in the flood though, was he? He didn’t like the cabin he was in, and he and his family left before the flood.

    He didn’t even know he was “a victim of the flood” until recently.

    Illogical comparison is right. 😉

  15. noway406 // August 4, 2008 at 10:40 am

    Why does he feel that he needs to tell the kids that Lenny and Paula’s actions were all an act.
    *************************

    Exactly. If he tells the kids that P&L faked their affection for them, then he and only he is responsible for hurting the children.

    He’s under no obligation to say such a thing.

  16. “As for the telephone taping of Peterson, Legal Pub has been attempting to get the defenses side of the recordings.”

    Has anyone ever heard of any telephone recordings?

  17. There’s no need to tell those kids anything. At least, not the teens. They have eyes, ears and brains to figure out what is going on on their own. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. They’re both, from what’s been told the public, straight A students, so one must assume they have very high thought processes.

    As to the little people, Peterson need only take a page from his missing wife journal, and just tell them Lenny & Paula went away on vacation, without them, just as he did with his defense lawyer. He’s got a lot of practice screwing around with the minds of his children, so I’m sure they’ll figure something out.

    We’re supposed to hold true garbage spewed from a defense lawyer who combines his professional and personal life with a suspected killer? I don’t think so.

  18. Facs, I suppose it was phrased that way based on the sound advice of the drug and alcohol counselor, er, child counselor, who suggested Drew tell the youngest two children that Stacy was on vacation. 😉

  19. facsmiley // August 4, 2008 at 10:52 am

    “As for the telephone taping of Peterson, Legal Pub has been attempting to get the defenses side of the recordings.”

    Has anyone ever heard of any telephone recordings?
    ________________
    The only thing I could think this meant was Matt Phelps, with his “too carefully tousled hair”!

  20. Yes noway,

    IF L&Ps tapes show he is innocent, then drew can thank them and they can all be friends again.

    Then all he will have to explain to the kids is where their mothers went, and why she would leave them if “she SAID that she loved them.”

    Give me a break. Such hypocrisy.

    and about the flood guy;

    he didn’t even know he was missing! I think Stacy, if she were alive, would be aware she’s not with her family. Unless of course she has amnesia…..

  21. noway406 // August 4, 2008 at 10:55 am

    The only thing I could think this meant was Matt Phelps, with his “too carefully tousled hair”!
    *****************************

    Oh, I had forgotten those. Could be!

  22. Liz, that anyone tried to connect Stacy Peterson’s case with Darrell Johnson is nearly as funny as the first comment on Legal Pub which says in part “Joel is a much better lawyer than I originally thought.”

    I’m taking BigM’s advice and not believing everything I read.

    But I will keep an open mind. This person may decide they are wrong. 😉

  23. Facs – I saw “telephone recordings” referred to by MSNBC, but I don’t know if that was their take on it or if there is actually telephone recordings. I did her that referred to on tv also, I believe, but I don’t recall where, and it was only 1x.

  24. lizanne61 // August 4, 2008 at 10:56 am

    … I think Stacy, if she were alive, would be aware she’s not with her family. Unless of course she has amnesia….
    _________________________
    This would explain why she has been wandering around Peoria, IL … Kentucky … and Thailand. 😀

    Seriously though, you’ve probably just given Joel his next idea.

  25. Sorry, I don’t believe she left with another guy, so it must be a fugue. There are so many more indicators that he was an abuser (& a cheater) than that she was ever a cheater.

    Just wait til the character witnesses come in.

  26. noway, he’s gonna have to start paying me then. A few days ago I posted (others probably have too) that lenny would only be not credible in court if he were to take money….suddenly a website goes up to collect funds for him. hmmm

  27. Rescue,

    Wasn’t it said by Len that dp would come over every week to use his land phone to call about GJ appearances? Could be something on them, but I’d think he would’ve been very careful just because the people he was calling could be tapped.

  28. So, all we really need to do is wait for Stacy to get hit on the head again. Her memory will be instantly restored, she’ll borrow a quarter from a stranger (or whatever passes fora quarter in Thailand), call home and voila – no more psychological torture for the kids!

    I love a happy ending. 🙂

  29. Brodsky says…….

    “Are there any limits, no matter who is hurt and what means are used? Do the ends always justify the means, even when the means leave small children with permanent psychological scars? … “

    So, am I getting this right? The mother of these children, Stacy, who was in their lives for years, disappearing without a trace, without a kiss goodby, and without a single thought for them, didn’t cause them any permanent, psychological scars, especially when their father has been all over the news for months as a suspect in her demise, but a few months with Lenny & Paula has irrevocably damaged them psychologically?

    Oh, okay.

    Oh, and two teens, who have been through the loss of a mother once, before losing yet another one, are all-of-a-sudden emotionally and psychologically damaged from no longer having Lenny and Paula in their lives?

    Oh, okay.

    I’ve got a feeling Kris is very outspoken about all of this, because Peterson made remarks about him going to the GJ and telling it like it is. Only, I don’t think Kris was telling off LE as Peterson wanted everyone to believe. I think Kris told the truth and sees his miserable father for what he really is. He’s just stuck in a no-win situation. That happens when you’re only 13 years old. Can’t exactly go find yourself an apartment and move out.

  30. Lizanne – you are correct. Lenny and Paula’s house was bugged, both for sound and sight, and they did say that Peterson went over there to make phone calls every Wednesday (the original GJ day) to see who was called and who wasn’t.

    By the way, nice to see you back!!! Where have you been?

  31. rescueapet // August 4, 2008 at 11:18 am

    I think Kris told the truth and sees his miserable father for what he really is. He’s just stuck in a no-win situation. That happens when you’re only 13 years old. Can’t exactly go find yourself an apartment and move out.
    ************************************

    And that’s the true psychological torture that these kids are experiencing.

  32. DP and JB “worry” so much about the mental health of those children. (yeah right!)

    The younger children were told that Stacy went “on vacation” without them, she didn’t come back, and they’ve never seen her again. Can you imagine the feelings the youngest children now associate with going “on vacation”??

    The teens may feel relief when DP goes away without them, leaving them in peace. Am wondering what feelings and thoughts raced thru the minds of the two younger children when they heard that their Daddy was going “on vacation” without them?

    DP and JB need to consider THAT before they even dare try to place blame on others for causing mental anguish in those children.

    I think the teens realize that others do love them, care deeply about them. No matter what DP may tell them. I don’t think they or the two younger children can ever comprehend the amount of love and concern that even total strangers across the nation have for them. And I bet my last dollar DP won’t tell them of that.

  33. Yes, these are some smart kids too. But I wonder if they have learned anger against women problems like apparently runs in the family. They have been with the father influence more intensely than ever before in their lives…dp worked a lot of evenings and weekends before’retiring.’ Imagine all they’ve digested from him in the last 9 months.

    I’m sure Kris was coached, at least passively over time.

  34. thanks rescue@11:19

    been a busy summer; and then the kids take over my laptop all the time..pssht…..is it september yet?

    see ya later…errands to run…

  35. Noway,

    First it was said that all the children were left with Mike R, and that was wrong.

    Then it was said that the older two were left with Mike R, and that was wrong.

    All I’m saying is that you would think that when people give out bad information, and then go to correct it, they would at least correct it with actual good information, and not just more bad information. lol

    Not to mention the wrong information being put out that Drew had failed to notify the proper authorities of his trip and would somehow be in trouble when he returned.

    As for your source of information, I know who it is, and you’re right.. sometimes you just gotta pick through it all and decide what to believe and what not to believe.

    You are a brave brave messenger! I commend you!

  36. Children are a result of their upbringing. All of Drew’s kids seem to have steered clear of any trouble at this point.

    We don’t know exactly how things were in the house in front of these kids. Some kids grow up hearing their parents argue all the time – other parents find ways to only argue when the kids aren’t around.

    How the kids turn up though is a crap-shoot. In some cases, the kids will do everything in their power NOT to be like their parent (that is how people had portrayed Stacy) and others follow their parent’s path. That goes for bad things (addiction, abusive, gang involvement, criminal activies, work-a-holic, etc.) and good things (disciplined, educated, employed, etc.).

    Only time will tell. I just pray that these kids are indeed getting the attention and counseling they need from someone. And I pray for their sake that the case unfolds very soon so they don’t have to live their lives with a cloud of suspicion over their father (like the Ramsey boy had to live with). The children are victims here from all sides.

  37. thanks rescue@11:19

    been a busy summer….and the kids keep taking over my laptop….pshht…..is it september yet?

    see ya later, got to run some errands now that the rains have stopped.

  38. Maybe someone here can explain why an adult son of Drew Peterson, who still has his mother, had serious enough issues with his father that he became estranged from him, but we’re all to believe the crap that Brodsky and Peterson throw out there that the four minor children are happy, well adjusted and fine. Well, that is until now, when they had to be told that Lenny and Paula are deceitful and untrustworthy. Otherwise, up until just recently, they weathered, at least two of them did, the deaths of two mothers without a psychological scar.

    Too bad Eric can’t get those kids out of there for their own safety!

  39. TAI- you’re quite right about the influence of parents. A good example of that is the two oldest boys, one allegedly hates his father, yet stephen obviously emulates him. Depends on the born character + the environment.

  40. rescue, posted before I saw your response about the kids.

    I think the teen boys could go either way. I just can’t see how they both don’t have unexpressed emotions that will scar them. The adult sons made their choices before any of the deaths/disappearances of wives 3&4; when things were a Lot more stable than for the teen boys in the recent past.

    I hope DP got them a new therapist, preferably a childrens’ clinical psychologist, rather than the addiction counselor they were seeing. They’ll probably need a lifetime of help if DP is found guilty. Or if the kids suspect him.

    The kids of that Inverness IL case where the dad went (maybe 8 or so) years before he was arrested; they were teens at the time and they went through hell living with the dad’s transferred abuse to them, and they always thought he did it. Sad case. There was finally justice, but they’re scarred for life.

  41. Just a question..

    Everyone seems to think Eric is some great guy because he ‘got away’ and ‘stays away’ and that he should take the children and ‘get them away from all of this..’

    Why does everyone assume Eric is a good guy?

    Does anyone know why he actually is estranged from DP?

    If you don’t have a solid answer for the above two questions why on EARTH would you suggest he take the children?

    Is it because “anyone is better than Drew?”

    I really really hope that’s not how we are all forming our opinions of people now.

    I realize that my enemies enemies may be my friends.. but it may also mean they are just as bad as my enemy.

  42. Seppy – I can’t speak for anyone else, and I don’t know how anyone else thinks. I’m likening the situation regarding Eric with any child of a parent who has lesser morals that the child. That is, assuming the child is a young adult.

    It is my understanding that Eric became estranged from his father shortly after Kathleen’s death. I don’t know that for a fact, I am only assuming and basing my ideas on what I’ve come to learn, as everyone else here that blogs, on what’s been reported. They’re my assumptions. They’re not “fact.”

    My assumptions regarding Eric being a “good guy” are strictly based on what I HAVEN’T heard about him. Peterson has spared no one who came out against him. In fact, he even referred to his mother as being “senile” merely because she HAD to appear before the GJ. So, I can assume Eric is not a bad person, or his father would have dragged his name through the mud as best he could.

    I can just as well say Stephen isn’t a good guy because he’s had some adverse publicity, but that would be an incorrect assumption to base his character on that alone.

    Other than the felon that is now being allowed to spend time with Drew Peterson’s children, I can assume just about anyone is a better choice to nurture those children than their father.

    That is JMHO.

  43. I’ve heard a lot of people say thinks about Drew being lit and online all the time. I just wanted to point out that when you setup IM it usually defaults to loading on startup with automatic login. So his ID may actually login anytime the kids turn the PC on too. Don’t know why but I thought I’d put it out there for you all to chew on. :<)

  44. iamseppy // August 4, 2008 at 12:20 am

    Drew filed his itinerary with the States office, as he was required to do, stating when he was leaving, where he was going, and when he would be returning.

    As long as he checks in when he returns he is not in any violation of his bond.

    Drew was under no obligation to notify ISP that he was leaving, and if they failed to check with the States office to see if he had properly filed his paperwork then that is their error, hopefully that is not the case, that would seem rather uninformed of them…

    Also, it seems some were also misinformed about the location of the children. I hope they have realized their mistake and correct themselves.

    Here is hoping that Monday morning produces some results towards the hearsay bill though!
    ————————————————————–

    Well as far as I know he told the judge he needed to leave the state with his kids. There was nothing said to the judge about a jaunt to seal up a book deal out of state.

    Sure he might have done it all legal but he was his typical slime doing it.

  45. iamseppy // August 4, 2008 at 12:19 pm

    Just a question..

    Everyone seems to think Eric is some great guy because he ‘got away’ and ’stays away’ and that he should take the children and ‘get them away from all of this..’

    Why does everyone assume Eric is a good guy?

    Does anyone know why he actually is estranged from DP?

    If you don’t have a solid answer for the above two questions why on EARTH would you suggest he take the children?

    Is it because “anyone is better than Drew?”

    I really really hope that’s not how we are all forming our opinions of people now.

    I realize that my enemies enemies may be my friends.. but it may also mean they are just as bad as my enemy.
    ———————————————————
    Well staying away from a double murderer is pretty good thinking in my book.

  46. According to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,383459,00.html)

    “Schoenstedt said if Peterson leaves the state, he has to file a travel itinerary in advance with the county probation department. Peterson waived his extradition rights and agreed to be tried in absentia should he miss any legal proceedings to win the judge’s approval to travel to Florida to vacation with his children.”

    I think technically he did not do anything wrong if the stipulations by the judge didn’t say that he had to prove the kids were with him. He was given permission to go as long as he filed an itinerary and waived his right to extradition and being present at hearings that he missed.

    Plus I don’t think we really know yet who exactly went on vacation and where the kids were. All I’ve seen so far is rumors and theories.

    We just have to trust that the legal system will make sure that Drew is abiding by any rules they have laid out for him.

  47. amandareckonwith // August 4, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    What felon is spending time with Drew’s children?

    ———————————————————-

    I think they are refering to Mike R. I am not sure if he has been convicted of a felony in the past or if they are talking about the felony charges he is facing now that keep getting continued and continued………..

  48. iknoweverythinglol // August 4, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    amandareckonwith // August 4, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    What felon is spending time with Drew’s children?

    ———————————————————-

    I think they are refering to Mike R. I am not sure if he has been convicted of a felony in the past or if they are talking about the felony charges he is facing now that keep getting continued and continued………..

    *****************************

    IKELOL – Yeah, that must be what I meant. Thanks for clearing that up.

    🙂

  49. Also… how do any of you know the kids are with or without Drew?

    It looks like you’re getting your feathers really ruffled with no wind except your own rumors.

    Somebody explain this to me, or send me a PM if you want.

  50. Amanda, Sharon said on Geraldo that the older boys where at the house sunday and she saw Mike R. going in and out of the house all weekend.

  51. CHICAGO (AP) — Domestic violence victims in Illinois now have a new tool to try to protect themselves from their abusers.

    Governor Rod Blagojevich on Monday signed into law legislation that lets a judge order abusers to wear a GPS tracking device if they’ve violated a restraining order. Anti-domestic violence advocates hope the devices will help save lives because victims will be alerted when their offenders are near.

    The family of Cindy Bischof helped push the law in Springfield.

    Bischof was killed in March when she was gunned down by an ex-boyfriend in the Elmhurst parking lot where she worked. She had taken numerous steps to try to protect herself but it wasn’t enough
    from wbbm

  52. These are probably the charges that are most concerning at the moment:

    ROBINSON MICHAEL 2 8 8 405 930 08CF000098 0 BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY 3 Motions
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 2 8 8 405 930 08CF000098 0 DOMESTIC BTRY/PHYSICAL 2 Motions
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 2 8 8 405 930 08CF000098 0 INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL 1 Motions

  53. iknoweverythinglol // August 4, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    Amanda, Sharon said on Geraldo that the older boys where at the house sunday and she saw Mike R. going in and out of the house all weekend.
    ********************

    What purpose does this awful woman have announcing the kid’s whereabouts?

    Did she say Drew was in FL without the kids?

    Did she say the kids were alone there?

    Did she say Mike Robinson was responsible for their care?

  54. Amanda – aren’t you the one that posted an unsubstantiated rumor, given to you in a phone call from an unnamed source, that there were bones found in a manhole in Lemont?

    Who called you?
    What kind of bones were they?
    Were they human?
    What did the police do with the bones?
    Were they identified?

    What purpose does it serve to post something like this without a signed, sworn, affidavit? Oh, yeah, I get it. You posted something you “heard” from someone.

    Wanna give the rest of us a pass now?

  55. noway406 // August 4, 2008 at 10:33 am

    Liz, I don’t think the person who told me the kids were in Florida was ever an FSPer. But yes, she said the kids were with family (at least for some portion of that time).
    _______________

    Sorry, this should have been “were NOT in Florida” … now I’ll go read what else I missed … and mistyped. 😀

  56. Also, it seems some were also misinformed about the location of the children. I hope they have realized their mistake and correct themselves.
    ***********************************

    OK, I guess I’ve missed something. I still don’t know where the kids were. Anyone care to enlighten me?

  57. Sure, rescue. You certainly NEED one.

    By the way, the police responded in force to that call of ‘bones found’ because Craig Stebic used to work in the vicinity.

    The bones were an animal, not human as was first reported.

    I told it on kimmers, you must have missed the post.

  58. iamseppy // August 4, 2008 at 11:48 am
    … As for your source of information, I know who it is, and you’re right.. sometimes you just gotta pick through it all and decide what to believe and what not to believe. …
    _____________
    Since you know who she is and I don’t, could you fill me in?

    As far as facts … I suppose you’ll have to wait for the trial (if any) for that. These blogs are all about false accusations, jumping to conclusions, assumptions, conjecture and speculation.

    😀

  59. And in case anyone is worried about the kids being endangered by their whereabouts and status being disclosed, please take a deep breath, relax and remember that I am asking about the past.

    Unless someone has a time machine, I’ll think their safety is assured.

  60. facs, some said the kids were with Mike Robinson … Sunday on Geraldo, Sharon also said that she had seen the kids outside around 4 p.m. (not sure if that meant all) and had seen Mike Robinson going in and out of Drew’s house that day.

    I think she then concluded that Mike had been watching the kids when in reality he may have just been doing a little light housework so Drew didn’t come home to a pig sty.

    The kids (according to “my” anonymous source; here’s your salt) were not “home alone” but had been (at least on Friday) with Drew’s brother (Paul) and sister-in-law (Norma). Except for Kris who had been at his own house.

    It would be much simpler if Drew had just posted their whereabouts before leaving with Joel.

    😉

  61. I told it on kimmers, you must have missed the post.

    ******

    Yeah, I guess I did. I focus more on other things you say over there.

    🙂

  62. Now, see, Amanda. You’re getting your feathers all fluffed up over something you can’t verify one way or the other. You’ll just have to think about it. Am I a member, or aren’t I?

    Maybe you should just ban everyone all at once, like BigM did, and find out by process of elimination.
    +++++++++++++

    Aw, Amanda, I’m just having fun with you. Relax. It’s a joke. :mrgreen:

  63. Amanda – one only has to read through these daily posts to get the gist of who’s the bull in the glass shop.

    🙂

  64. Hey Facs – I don’t think anyone has to worry about Sharon disclosing the kids’ whereabouts. Drew does just fine when he’s online, chatting with his Internet hotties. Always said he should leave the key under the doormat so anyone can let themselves in while he’s away, only to greet him with open arms upon his return.

  65. Amanda,

    If you don’t mind me asking? Who is an awful woman? Sharon? IMO-If this is who you mean, she is by far from that. Sharon is the most loving, caring woman one could know. JMO

    I say no more on that note. How is everyone today?

  66. Hey Noway – I guess I have seen all those versions posted in various places. But then Seppy posted this:

    “Also, it seems some were also misinformed about the location of the children. I hope they have realized their mistake and correct themselves”

    So I thought that there must have been some unequivocal post that cleared everything up and stated the facts and that I just missed it.

  67. I got your PM and thought that iamseppy’s confusion was based on my forgetting the “NOT” in my “in Florida” … but her post came before my mistake.

    I think the only thing that would clear the “location of the children” up would be a statement from Drew on video … not clipped together … that stated where the children were. 🙂

  68. Hmmm, I’d want it to be live and with only one camera and in one take.

    I don’t know though, I’ve seen that talking baby ad… 😉

  69. lizanne61 // August 4, 2008 at 10:25 am

    Hey Noway- I missed geraldo last night but thats what I heard. And didn’t you hear that from an anon source too?

    I got beaned by BigM. I believed he had an email from drew, just like you had one from I assume an FSPer. I guess I trust both of you for some reason. (not saying I always agree) I wasn’t aware of yours tho til today; was his ruse about one in response to your claim?

    I’m so confused.
    _________________
    Are you saying that BigM posted that he got an email from Drew because an anonymous woman told me Drew was in Florida and the kids were with family (his)?

    Sorry, Liz … I’m confused too. 🙂

  70. Well, I hope the kids still get that Florida vacation that Drew said he was going to take them on. School doesn’t start yet for a couple of weeks.

  71. This is what Danya Hooker reported on this site, on 7/14/2008.

    In part….

    “Schoenstedt said if Peterson leaves the state, he has to file a travel itinerary in advance with the county probation department. Peterson waived his extradition rights and agreed to be tried in absentia should he miss any legal proceedings to win the judge’s approval to travel to Florida to vacation with his children.

    Brodsky said his client asked for the modification so Peterson could take his children on summer vacation.”

    ~By Danya Hooker, dhooker@mysuburbanlife.com

  72. Danya – have you done any lookin’ into this issue regarding 666 leaving the State, especially since he requested to do so under the guise of taking his kids on vacation?

  73. Drew asked to have the bond modified and said one of the reasons was so he and the kids could go on summer vacation. The judge’s decision simply said that if Drew wants to leave the state for any reason, he has to notify authorities.

  74. 😀 666

    I guess the vacation turned into a business trip to confer with Glenn Selig about their appearance on The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet.

    That’s understandable.

  75. Noway – yeah i understand that, but i hope it doesn’t take the place of the kids’ vacation. That would be mean.

  76. Must’ve been some kind of business venture. Who ever heard of an attorney traveling socially with his murder suspect of a client?

    If nothing else, Brodsky can teach future law students how to use their fingers during televised news shows.

  77. Too few rooky attorneys know the true value of squirming and pulling at one’s clothing during a televised appearance. Do you know the 5 “Must Picks” to successfully prove your client’s innocence?

    Next week the subject will be “Using Your Adenoids to Dazzle and Distract”. Welcoming guest lecturer Andrew Abood!

  78. I wonder…..Does anyone know if The GJ makes an announcement when they are going to stop hearing testimony and going into deliberations ? I checked the state website for GJ rules/responsibilites , but it does not address this issue….Something tells me its all TOP SECRET until they hand down endictments or
    don’t endict. Just wondering if anyone should happen to know…Good evening everyone. I also wonder if you all went on vacation over the weekend and forgot to tell me lol j/k

  79. SB2718 Enrolled LRB095 05870 RLC 25961 b

    1 AN ACT concerning criminal law.

    2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
    3 represented in the General Assembly:

    4 Section 5. The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 is
    5 amended by adding Section 115-10.6 as follows:

    6 (725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 new)
    7 Sec. 115-10.6. Hearsay exception for intentional murder of
    8 a witness.
    9 (a) A statement is not rendered inadmissible by the hearsay
    10 rule if it is offered against a party that has killed the
    11 declarant in violation of clauses (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Section
    12 9-1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 intending to procure the
    13 unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal or
    14 civil proceeding.
    15 (b) While intent to procure the unavailability of the
    16 witness is a necessary element for the introduction of the
    17 statements, it need not be the sole motivation behind the
    18 murder which procured the unavailability of the declarant as a
    19 witness.
    20 (c) The murder of the declarant may, but need not, be the
    21 subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered.
    22 If the murder of the declarant is not the subject of the trial
    23 at which the statement is being offered, the murder need not

    SB2718 Enrolled – 2 – LRB095 05870 RLC 25961 b

    1 have ever been prosecuted.
    2 (d) The proponent of the statements shall give the adverse
    3 party reasonable written notice of its intention to offer the
    4 statements and the substance of the particulars of each
    5 statement of the declarant. For purposes of this Section,
    6 identifying the location of the statements in tendered
    7 discovery shall be sufficient to satisfy the substance of the
    8 particulars of the statement.
    9 (e) The admissibility of the statements shall be determined
    10 by the court at a pretrial hearing. At the hearing, the
    11 proponent of the statement bears the burden of establishing 3
    12 criteria by a preponderance of the evidence:
    13 (1) first, that the adverse party murdered the
    14 declarant and that the murder was intended to cause the
    15 unavailability of the declarant as a witness;
    16 (2) second, that the time, content, and circumstances
    17 of the statements provide sufficient safeguards of
    18 reliability;
    19 (3) third, the interests of justice will best be served
    20 by admission of the statement into evidence.
    21 (f) The court shall make specific findings as to each of
    22 these criteria on the record before ruling on the admissibility
    23 of said statements.
    24 (g) This Section in no way precludes or changes the
    25 application of the existing common law doctrine of forfeiture
    26 by wrongdoing.

  80. It’s like a freakin’ sauna outside right now. The air is almost too heavy to breath. It’s dark already and there’s a big storm headed our way. Hold on tight if you’re in the path!

  81. This information is all according to a telephone call placed to the Senate President’s office on July 17th. I do not have a direct dial phone number; I was transferred numerous times from the main phone number that had been posted on all of the forums by Seppy and others.

    The Hearsay Bill passed the House, then was forwarded back to the Senate which passed the Bill on July 10th.

    Once the Bill is passed by the House and the Senate, it goes to either the House President’s office or the Senate President’s office, depending on which body of government finalized and held the last vote on the Bill.

    Since the Senate was the last governing body to vote upon this Bill, it was forwarded to the Senate President’s office.

    As of July 17th, the Bill was still in the Senate President’s office.

    According to the Senate President’s office, they have 30 days from the date it is received in their office within which to send the Bill to the Governor’s office.

    This would put August 10th as the latest possible date that the Senate President’s office has by law to forward the Bill (this date was given to me by the Senate President’s office).

    From the date that the Governor receives the Bill on his desk, he has 60 days within which to sign the Bill into law or veto it.

    Once he signs the Bill into law, it becomes immediately effective.

    If he fails to do anything at all with the Bill within those 60 days, on the 61st day the Bill would automatically become law.

  82. I wonder…does anyone really believe that the reason DP has not been arrested is only because they are waiting for that bill to pass. I don’t think that is the case…I think it’s going to happen when the GJ hands down the indictment.

    Just my opinion.

  83. I’d like to find out this. If Drew Peterson is arrested, and if LE wants to count on that Hearsay Law, can they still arrest him and use it, as long as it’s signed BEFORE he goes to trial.

    I don’t see the purpose of holding off arresting him. The Hearsay Law would be used during a trial, therefore, what’s the difference if they arrest him now?

  84. I wonder….Dunno…..But I think his arrest is
    just around the corner. Sure hope it goes down without any drama involving the kids.

  85. What is very interesting about Brodsky’s claim of psychological injury to the Peterson children is the fact that shortly after Stacy’s disappearance, in one of the MANY interviews of Drew , he was asked how the children were. He responded they were fine. When asked if they were upset about their mother being missing, he responded that they had other things to think about. (I’ll find the video and then post it here later.)

    So…. they weren’t particularly traumatized about their mother disappearing, according to Drew on video, but ARE traumatized by the relationship they had with Len and Paula?

    Inconsistent, Drew and Joel!

    I am certain that the Peterson children are traumatized, but not by Len and Paula. The emotional devastation they must be experiencing is because of the fact that their mothers are dead at their father’s hands. Leave it to Drew to try to twist the truth.

  86. jurypeer // August 4, 2008 at 11:48 pm

    What is very interesting about Brodsky’s claim of psychological injury to the Peterson children is the fact that shortly after Stacy’s disappearance, in one of the MANY interviews of Drew , he was asked how the children were. He responded they were fine. When asked if they were upset about their mother being missing, he responded that they had other things to think about. (I’ll find the video and then post it here later.)

    So…. they weren’t particularly traumatized about their mother disappearing, according to Drew on video, but ARE traumatized by the relationship they had with Len and Paula?

    Inconsistent, Drew and Joel!

    I am certain that the Peterson children are traumatized, but not by Len and Paula. The emotional devastation they must be experiencing is because of the fact that their mothers are dead at their father’s hands. Leave it to Drew to try to twist the truth.
    ———————————————-

    YOU hit the nail on head , it is drew that has done damage to those kids and no one but him, they are emotionaly abused and mentally by what he is telling them….. they willl need help when drew is going to the clink… and I cann’t belive joel is saying that kinda crapola… he shoudl talke look at his own back yard

Comments are closed.